Monday, November 25, 2013

Why true reconciliation remains a mirage

Last week at a meeting in Pretoria evaluating peace and
reconciliation processes across the continent, I had the opportunity to
reflect upon the role of trauma in conflict and reconciliation.

Kenya
is a prime example of a country that has recently had major civil
upheaval, exposing many citizens to extremely traumatic events. Today,
many, especially politicians, are parroting the mantra that people have
reconciled and are living together in peace and harmony. The Jubilee political coalition is touted as evidence of this.

In
the parlance of conflict studies, one would term the method employed in
managing our post-election violence as having succeeded at arriving at a
negotiated political settlement. While this was a good outcome, it by
no means constituted reconciliation. What happened was a suspension of hostilities while, hopefully, more lasting solutions were sought and implemented.

Research
has indicated that trauma management and reconciliation are so
intertwined that one cannot realistically hope to succeed in
implementing one without the other. Unfortunately, many past
efforts at reconciliation in this and other African countries have been
similarly focused on settling conflicts by dealing with the competing
interests, and convincing the combatants that they cannot do without
each other.

Little effort has been focused on true reconciliation,
whose aim is to effect a change in how people identify themselves,
removing the need to negate the hated “other” as a core part of
self-identity. True reconciliation facilitates the development of
a positive communal identity independent of the need to demonise
others, and the acknowledgment of the others’ humanity and right to
exist and have competing narratives about common events.

In my
presentation at the Pretoria meeting, I argued that traumatised
individuals are at increased risk of getting traumatised again, and of
perpetrating traumatic events on others. Unaddressed trauma tends
to create a spiral of repeated conflict, making it near-impossible to
intervene without addressing the trauma effects. Further,
although they are most in need of reconciliation, traumatised
individuals are unlikely to openly welcome interventions due to their
suspicious nature.

Interestingly, societies or communities that
have suffered long-term conflict often behave in the same manner as
traumatised individuals. They are more likely to be insular and
isolated, suspicious of strangers and ready to react with violence at
the slightest provocation. They are also likely to experience
internal conflict and upheaval as the members recalibrate their own
views on the nature of human interactions.

These communal
reactions are often enhanced and magnified by leaders who often have
been at the heart of the conflict and have been perhaps more intimately
affected by it than those they lead. The result is that the
population is afraid to second-guess their “liberation heroes” who, in
turn, are afraid to acknowledge their possible psychological frailties.

The
obvious outcome is that possibly traumatised leaders make erratic
decisions that increase, rather than ameliorate, the risk of conflict.
The populace applaud and unquestioningly follow the leader.
Reconciliation initiatives cannot thrive in such an environment.

Future
conflict interventions must build in principles of reconciliation along
these lines, and also deal with the needs of traumatised individuals
and populations.

Dr Lukoye Atwoli is a consultant psychiatrist and senior lecturer at Moi University’s School of Medicine. lukoye@gmail.com